Syrian Refugees

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, we are not doing nothing. We are trying to work as best we can with other agencies. For example, the Home Office operates two resettlement programmes in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The main resettlement programme is Gateway. In agreement with UNHCR, refugees are resettled from a small number of targeted locations. Since the first arrivals in 2004, the UK has resettled more than 5,500 refugees under this programme. The programme for each year is agreed in advance with ministers.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, the Syrian crisis is probably the most serious crisis that has confronted us for a very long time. Our allies around Syria—Turkey, Lebanon and other countries—are battling under the strain and beginning to break down under it. There is no doubt that the Government’s policy has been excellent in terms of financial aid and I give full credit to it, but I agree with the noble Baroness who has just spoken that the gesture of having some Syrian children and families here would be an example to the rest of the members of the United Nations. That example would come all the more from a country that has given moral leadership in terms of financial help. The Government need to take one more human step to show that they are willing to have a limited number of Syrian families in this country as an example to the rest of the European Union and the rest of the United Nations.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have got the sentiment of a number of the questions asked here this evening and I know that a number of noble Lords wish that the Government would go further. However, the Government have considered this matter very carefully and respect the views of those who favour a co-ordinated response. We maintain the view that our top priority should continue to be to provide humanitarian assistance to displaced people in the region, in partnership with the neighbouring countries, the UNHRC and other UN and non-governmental partners. That is the focus of our policy commitment. As I have said, £500 million has already been committed and another £100 million was announced only the other day. That is £600 million in total invested in that programme. That is something that this country should be proud of.

Immigration: Detention

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I will not comment on the latter point but, obviously, the Government’s policy is that when people are here and they have no permission to remain they should depart voluntarily.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

Does my noble friend agree that someone being deported should at least be physically able to sustain their health during the flight? Does he further agree that there should be some contact with the Government of the country to which a person is returning to ensure that a man who is seriously ill will be met at the airport and taken to suitable accommodation to enable him to survive?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that my noble friend’s allegations about the condition of Mr Muazu at the time he was flying back to Nigeria are inaccurate. As I have said, he is currently fit to fly. He is eating and drinking, and is mobile.

Alcohol: Minimum Pricing

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, that is a slightly different issue from alcohol but I can see the relation between the two. As for Mr Lynton Crosby, I have no doubt that Australians have been able to give lessons to all of us. I am sure that the Labour Party is taking great note of its sister party in Australia as regards how to deal with the party leadership.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

The evidence is quite clear that minimum unit pricing has two dramatic effects. First, it cuts the level of alcohol-related deaths and sharply reduces admissions to hospital, as my noble friend has said. Equally importantly, it drives drinkers steadily towards lower-strength alcohol from high-strength alcohol—which has nothing to do with the Minister’s proposal about VAT and all the rest of it. Given the latest evidence from Saskatchewan and from Sheffield University with regard to the United Kingdom, will the Prime Minister and the Cabinet readdress this issue, at a time when many thousands of English and Scottish people suffer from the effects of serious alcohol, including not least in domestic violence?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I reiterate to my noble friend that the minimum unit pricing policy remains under consideration. It has not been shelved.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord McNally on an impressive attempt to deal with the issue of offenders and the reoffending rates that are far too high in this country. Let me ask him in particular whether he can say something in conclusion about the fact that a large number of the young offenders in this country are illiterate. More than half the young men and women under the age of 20 who are in prison do not have the capacity to be fully literate, and that makes it almost impossible for them to get jobs, however hard they try. I am delighted that my noble friend has said that education is now increasingly seen as a key part of dealing with the whole issue of offenders, but it is also important to recognise that it has been a long time since we required young men and women in prison to undertake adequate education which would give them at least the basic ability to get some sort of job. It is therefore good news to hear these brave and radical proposals, and I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has a distinguished record in the field, gave them such a warm welcome.

I want primarily to address two other matters, however, rather than the issues of prison and penal reform, which will be well covered in this House and on which there are many experts in the area. Those other matters are, first, the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and, secondly, the even more toxic issue—if I may put it that way—of immigration.

With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, had to say, many of us richly appreciate the courage he has shown for many years on the issue of press behaviour and the level of press complaints. Although it has served him no particular use in his career, he has had the courage to continue to insist on the crucial importance of addressing the issue of complaints against the media. In the past couple of years he has had immense additional support as a result of the emerging horrors of what some members of the press have seen fit to undertake—and, frankly, what some proprietors have seen fit to accept in the pursuit of larger and larger circulation. In addition to mentioning my great respect for the noble Lord, I also want to say that he was one of the few who made it clear that the original Press Complaints Commission was not doing its job and was at best papering over some of the issues that needed to be looked at. He has now, in a sense, come into his own with the Leveson report.

The debate today is about not only Home Office matters but also constitutional affairs. Perhaps I may therefore say one word on that issue. It is of the greatest possible significance that all parties in the other place were able to agree on a solution to the problem of the independence of the press versus the protection of victims from cruel and sometimes brutal treatment. As we well remember, those victims included some of the most vulnerable and innocent in our society.

It is constitutionally important to give true weight and accord to the relatively small number of issues on which the parties can together agree on a constructive solution. In the past few years the House of Commons has moved from possibly being seen as an ineffective rubber-stamping House to one where—largely because of the remarkable work of the Select Committees, and I have in mind the Select Committees on Public Administration, the Treasury and others—it has shown its real ability and talent in a way that cannot be limited or constrained by the Whips. We have seen what the House of Commons might be if it were given real respect for its decisions. Such respect should be shown now over the Leveson report and the outcome in terms of a committee to look at the press and the media. We owe a great deal to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, for that.

We owe even more to reminding the Prime Minister that, in the light of what he has said, the constitutional value of using Parliament—a united Parliament of all parties—to uphold some of the best standards in public life, is absolutely critical. The consequences of rejecting that proposal now not only would be serious but would, in effect, say that powerful forces which are not prepared to worry about the criticisms made of them could have their own way in future Parliaments. I can think of few worse legacies to pass on.

The other matter to which I want briefly to refer is the toxic issue of immigration. I was in one or two areas during the recent local council elections, and friends of mine were in other areas such as Somerset, where the whole place was plastered with strong suggestions that the entire population of Romania and Bulgaria, adding up to 29 million people, would universally and collectively take some sort of Noah’s ark and immediately arrive in Britain to settle down in one constituency after another. Luckily for us, despite it having some considerable flaws, we have the BBC. Through “Newsnight”, the BBC undertook a serious and detailed study, as some of your Lordships may have seen, of the likelihood of many Romanians and Bulgarians deciding to hurry over to the United Kingdom to join the unemployment queues. One point that the “Newsnight” study made was that less than 1% of Romanians and 3% of Bulgarians showed any great desire to emigrate to this country. Of those who did, 0.4% in the case of Romanians had made any inquiries at all with recruitment agencies or other bodies about where they might live or what jobs they might get.

Of course, some Romanians and Bulgarians will find their way to Britain and many more will find their way to Germany and Scandinavia but, frankly, the representation that our electors receive from UKIP bears no relationship to any serious study that has been made in any part of this country. What was UKIP’s reason for doing that? As we all know, it was a very good way of stampeding the forces so that there was no need to bother about the more serious issues of policy.

Having said that about the Romanians and Bulgarians, I shall turn for a moment to what I believe to be one or two of the serious problems that have arisen in this country due to the nature of our immigration policy, driven as it is to such an extraordinary extent by what one can only describe as political opportunism.

The first issue that I want to mention is the huge dependence of our universities on overseas students for obtaining excellence. Whether we like it or not, the 300,000 or so students—about one-third of the total—who come from overseas to study in British universities and colleges, which, quite properly, are inspected to ensure that they offer not a bogus but a genuine and honourable education, are of huge economic value to this country. Higher education earns something like £8 billion a year from the rest of the world through overseas students. However, equally importantly, as I think many of us understand, those overseas students give us access to an understanding of other cultures and other countries, and that, in turn, encourages not only exports but, more importantly, a high respect and a high liking for this country. It is very hard to overestimate the value of overseas students in a country such as ours but, if we are to adopt something like a national curriculum, it is all the more important that we also remember that we are part of the globe and that that globe is understood, through us, above all by human relationships.

Therefore, I argue that the Government should think very carefully about attitudes by the Home Office, the visa offices and, in particular, the UKBA towards overseas students. Sadly, they have begun to show real signs of discouraging people from choosing to come to this country—there has already been a substantial decline in the number of, for example, Indian and Chinese students. I advert not only to members of my own party or members of the Opposition but to the ringing warning given by the Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson, about the evident effect of these restrictions on the level and standing of overseas students wishing to come to this country to receive their education. I draw attention, in particular, to the abandonment of the so-called tier 1, which allowed people who studied here to continue for two years only—but two years none the less—after they had completed their degree studies in order to practise what they had learnt. That is crucial, for example, in professions ancillary to medicine and to medicine itself. Tier 1 has been withdrawn and replaced by an extremely complicated system, which depends upon the rules that apply to residents in this country.

One of the few phrases in the gracious Speech that I really dislike refers to the need to have people who can contribute to this country and not the kind of people who simply live off the country. It is perhaps worth mentioning that it is not only Russian oligarchs who contribute to this country but health assistants and nurses. They are part of the crucial fabric of the National Health Service and they enable it to deal with the large number of people who go to A&E. Heaven knows what we would do without their contribution. Contributions can be small and great—no doubt the right reverend Prelate will inform me, quite rightly, about the widow’s mite—but that contribution has been of extraordinary value to this country in many ways. It would be a great mistake to narrow it all down to whether somebody is a businessman or entrepreneur coming to this country often in order to live in a mansion house.

In conclusion, one thing that we have to be very cautious about in this country is our attitude towards other people who want to come here. Over the years we have benefited immensely from such immigration. I remind the House of the huge value of two great streams of migration to the United Kingdom. The first of those in recent years was the great Jewish entry between the wars. That has been immensely valuable to us in field after field—medicine, science and business. The second was the entry of Asian immigrants from east African countries after the rise of Idi Amin and others, who in turn brought to this country great entrepreneurial skills and great innovation. I hope that when we look at the gracious Speech we will bear these things in mind, particularly when we consider immigration and our treatment of those who want to come to this country.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 7. This is the first time I have intervened on Report so I draw the House’s attention to the various relevant entries on the register of interests. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby for having put her name to this amendment.

I did not take part in the debates on Part 1 in Committee. My interests were much more with Parts 2 and 3, and I have tabled some amendments that we shall debate on Wednesday. However, developments since have led me to table this amendment, which inserts a new paragraph at the beginning of the section headed “Procedure” in Schedule 1 that provides for the direct election of the chairman of the ISC by Members of the House of Commons. To borrow the phrase of my noble friend Lord King, it is an evolutionary development in the power and prestige of the committee.

My purpose in moving this amendment can be simply stated. First, it is to buttress the independence of the chair of the ISC. Secondly, it is to increase the democratic accountability of that role. Thirdly and most importantly, it is to increase public confidence in the operations of the ISC. I make it absolutely clear that I am in no way attacking or criticising the existing or past holders of the office of chairman of the ISC, but my amendment reflects the fact that with the provisions of this Bill as a whole, the Government are moving into new, uncharted and potentially dangerous territory, which requires us to consider whether extra precautions are needed to buttress our civil liberties. I note in passing how the reputation and reach of the existing Select Committees appear to have increased since their chairs were directly elected.

The amendment would establish a further check and balance appropriate to the consideration of matters as complex and as delicate as national security. First, it would open up the chairmanship of the ISC to any Member of Parliament who wished to stand for it. In doing so, it would reduce the concern—I make no assessment as to whether it is justified—that leaving the appointment of the ISC entirely in the hands of the Prime Minister runs the risk of being rather too cosy for modern conditions. I note, and my noble friend Lord Taylor has referred to this already, that the Bill as drafted permits—empowers—the members of the ISC to choose one of their number to be their chair. While I welcome that development, I do not believe that it goes far enough. Since the Prime Minister controls the membership of the ISC, he controls the population from which the chair is chosen.

Secondly, the amendment would balance this by requiring each candidate to obtain the formal approval and consent of the Prime Minister before standing. This would eliminate candidates who might have shown no prior interest in or experience of the intelligence or security field, or shown—dare I say it?—an overdeveloped interest in opportunities for self-promotion. Thirdly, the amendment does not seek to wrench apart the existing arrangements immediately. The other provisions of the Bill will take some time to bite and so should this provision.

Let me also make it clear what the amendment does not do. It does not seek to make the ISC a Select Committee of Parliament—we have had an extensive debate on the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—so the reporting arrangements would remain unchanged, with the Prime Minister able to require redaction or exclusion as under Clause 3(4) of the Bill. I accept the force of the argument that there must be limits to transparency in this area.

My principal reason for tabling the amendment is that, as we move slowly but apparently inexorably into the shadowy world of closed material procedures, special advocates and restricted reporting, we need to ensure that there is at least one person at the heart of the process who has a direct democratic mandate given to him or her. As an example of how this power might be used, a number of amendments have been tabled to Part 3 of the Bill about review procedures, sunset clauses and so forth. A directly elected chair of the ISC could and should play a vital role in reassuring Parliament and the public that the new powers to be given under the Bill are being exercised properly but above all proportionately. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, my name is also attached to the amendment and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts on an extraordinarily brief and clear description of the reasons for it. I begin by paying a moment’s tribute to the person—no longer alive, I am sad to say—who started the whole process of Select Committees. I still remember when I was a Minister in the Labour Government which fell in 1979 the amazement that I felt when Lord St John of Fawsley got up and proposed the idea of Select Committees, which were to be independent of the Whips and free to be accountable to Parliament and to express their concerns about matters of public policy. I think that the Select Committees have done this Parliament very proud indeed, not least at the far end of this building, in the House of Commons, where, time and again, they have come up with remarkable insight and courage in a way that has added hugely to the prestige of Parliament, a prestige that was becoming slowly lost because of the inevitable predictability of so many of our open debates.

The amendment which my noble friend has moved, which I support, fully comprehends the point made so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, which is that no Act of Parliament should be able to take away from the Prime Minister his fundamental responsibility for the security of the citizens of this kingdom. However, there is no need to go as far as the present ISC does in accountability passing to the Prime Minister rather than to Parliament as a whole.

The ISC is of course a special case. It is unlike any other committee of Parliament. It is certainly unlike Select Committees, but also unlike other committees that have served Parliament over the years. It is different, of course, because of the sensitivity of the material that it deals with. It is therefore the responsibility of this House, in its consideration, to try to get the correct balance between accountability to Parliament and the sensitivity of much of the material that the ISC deals with. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said that effectively, but rightly indicated that there was room for some evolution of this committee. Perhaps I might say a word or two about that evolution.

The proposers of this amendment have chosen it very carefully to ensure that a totally unsuitable person cannot be appointed to be chairman of this committee. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, we are leaving a veto with the Prime Minister against a candidate for chairmanship who might be wholly unsuitable. That is absolutely right because the Prime Minister, by the nature of his office, has a greater access to detailed intelligence than most of the rest of us. However, I have one word of warning because the issue of accountability to Parliament is of the first importance. In responding to an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, properly stressed time and again the importance of treating sensitive information with due respect and care. What he did not mention enough was that the House faces a genuine concern about intelligence. It is simply not the case that there is no public concern about the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that I do not offend people by mentioning two cases that spring to mind.

One is that the general issue of intelligence goes back a very long way. Those of us who recall the period immediately after the Second World War will remember the so-called Cambridge group, who turned out to be extremely able people in the intelligence that they sent to the Soviet Union, and that every one of them was totally accepted as a respected member of the establishment. It took a long time for people to realise that people such as Sir Anthony Blunt and others could actually be spies.

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment, but I cannot understand why the Prime Minister should be asked for formal consent. Consent, yes, but I do not understand the argument for formal consent.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will allow me, I will finish the argument I am trying to make—I will not be lengthy—and then endeavour to address his question.

I want to go back for a moment to the other source of considerable concern about intelligence, one with which I have fairly close acquaintance: the doubts that were raised about the intelligence used as the basis for the British involvement in the invasion of Iraq. At the time, the question was whether the intelligence we had about the possibility of Iraq having nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction was sufficiently sound for us to rely on. It was my view and that of my party that it was not; it was the view, equally honestly held, of other Members of this House, that it was. There was uncertainty, which has left behind it a strong desire to seek greater accountability. We would be very foolish not to recognise that that is still a live issue.

I come back to the issues concerning the particular proposal that we have made and that my noble friend has put before your Lordships. The proposal that the House of Commons as such should be entitled to elect a chairman of such a key committee will enable it to take into account its experience of committees of this kind. I have a good deal of sympathy with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord King, that the chairman should normally be drawn from the opposition Benches. That seems to be a kind of double guarantee that the committee would seek to be objective and not to protect people who should not be properly protected.

The second argument for the House of Commons as such to appoint the chairman, subject to a veto of candidates by the Prime Minister, is that that would essentially make the committee the creature of the House as a whole. The committee would no longer report specifically to the Prime Minister; it would report generally to Parliament. That is an excellent idea because it brings all parties—indeed, both Houses of Parliament—together in supporting the intelligence committee.

I conclude by saying a word about formal recognition. That is simply to indicate how seriously the proposal of the Prime Minister’s ability to draw the line at particular candidates must be taken. It would require him to agree in writing that that candidate should not be allowed to go forward in a certain, limited number of cases. I say as loudly and clearly as I can that this amendment meets the needs for greater accountability and what the noble Lord, Lord King, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said about the need for evolution of the committee to make it more accountable and democratic, in the broadest sense of the word. It is a proposal that the House should consider very carefully before making any final decision about it.

[Lord Gilbert]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support on my little, modest proposal but I am afraid that I cannot follow her on this business about any member of the House of Commons being able to stand for the chairmanship and then the Prime Minister having the right, or duty, to veto. Can she not see the possibility of the appalling public relations shambles which that could lead to? She has much experience in ministerial office. As soon as it is known that the Prime Minister has vetoed a candidate, there will be enormous pressure on him to say why and all sorts of invidious matters will be drawn out. I am afraid that it would be very unfortunate, to put it mildly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

The noble Lord would not expect me to agree with him, and I do not. However, in our forthcoming discussion on Report, both today and on Wednesday, he will have the opportunity to consider further whether it is not now high time that we accept a greater degree of accountability—one that has to carry with it an ability to limit, in extreme cases, people who would be wholly unsuitable as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

Perhaps I might respond to those two very rational and articulate contributions promoting the idea of a popular vote, as it were, in the House of Commons. I can see the benefits of that and those of ownership. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned stakeholding in the House of Commons. However, it seems that at least four problems need to be thought through.

First, the amendment would explicitly exclude anyone from the House of Lords ever chairing this committee. In the previous debate, while not seeking it for this House, we envisaged the possibility that at some stage there might be someone appropriate in this House to chair it. As I read it, the amendment would effectively preclude anyone from the House of Lords—unless it is envisaged that there be a nomination process for this House but that nobody in this House has a vote; only the House of Commons has a vote. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, may have been about to suggest that that was possible. It would be a peculiarly quaint electoral procedure for those who were nominating candidates to be precluded from voting on them.

Secondly, it would almost inevitably undermine the possibility of another envisaged benefit of convention: of the place going to the Opposition. It would not preclude it but would make it much less likely that the tradition of the position going to a member of the Opposition would be carried through, if for no other reason than the Opposition being, by definition, a minority in the House of Commons. Anyone from the majority party would therefore have an enhanced ability to achieve the post.

Thirdly, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert. As someone who has held relatively recent ministerial experience, I can tell your Lordships that there is no way that the Prime Minister could veto a nomination for the chairmanship of this committee without it becoming a major issue—not least because the person thus vetoed would make it a major issue. Once that was out, there would be all sorts of demands, in terms of natural justice and fairness, to put into the public domain the reasons why a Prime Minister should think them so serious that he or she should veto a Member of Parliament—an honourable Member—who was considered unworthy or somehow deficient in integrity or in other skills from being chairman of this committee.

The fourth reason is that, having known the House of Commons relatively recently, I am not sure that this is a position on which we should envisage political campaigning, but I assure noble Lords that that is what we will get if this position is put up for a 100% franchise in the Commons. Therefore, having listened to what has been said, and appreciating what lies beneath the suggestion that there be an electoral college for this composed of the whole House of Commons, I think that before going down this road we would have to think very carefully about the consequences that would arise in the dynamism of real politics from such a decision.

Universities: Overseas Students

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No student who was engaged in a course at London Metropolitan has been asked to leave at this stage. There was serious abuse of the process, despite the UKBA working alongside London Met. The UKBA felt that it could no longer rely on London Met to sponsor students and that is why the permit was withdrawn. As noble Lords will know, there is a judicial review going on and these arguments will, no doubt, be vented there. I am, however, confident that the UKBA made the right decision in this case.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, perhaps I may tell the Minister that last night I got off a plane from Beijing, where I had been visiting two of the most outstanding and internationally minded universities in China—and that we are shooting ourselves in the foot. Not only are we helping to destroy our own best universities, we are cutting off the contacts we need for future relationships, for future foreign influence and, of course, for future exports. I would therefore beg the Government to reconsider their current position. It is vital that students are excluded from the immigration policy, as they are in Australia, Canada and the United States. We are an exporting and internationally minded nation which is cutting itself off from contact with some of the most outstanding future leaders of the very countries with which we need to work most closely. I ask the Government to reconsider the situation very seriously.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend for raising this issue because, as she will know, the number of students from China is increasing. Indeed, the number of students from some parts of south-east Asia is increasing enormously: there is a 26% increase in students from Hong Kong and a 10% increase in students from Singapore. I do not believe that a policy which seeks to control this area of immigration in a proper and manageable fashion is in conflict with an education policy which is designed to give an opportunity for our excellent university education to be shared with students from around the world.

Slavery

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord gives me a tall order but one on which I am happy to oblige. Of course, we celebrate Trafalgar and indeed Lord Nelson’s contribution to that victory. This country has been at the fore in seeking to tackle slavery, but our history has different shades on this issue. It is very important that we recognise it as a global problem today. That is why we are working abroad in India and the Asian sub-continent to help to make sure that modern slavery still does not happen in these times.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that in the negotiations on the repatriation of some elements of the European Union directives on joint home affairs and justice issues, our Parliament and our Government will give special consideration to making sure that all the orders affecting slavery or trafficking will be very carefully considered before they are repatriated? The straightforward reason is that all the evidence on trafficking is that it is Europe-wide, indeed worldwide, and is not restricted to this nation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My noble friend is right to point out that this is a Europe-wide issue, which is why co-operation is directed Europe-wide. There is a directive to which we are fully signed up, and we will work together with our European colleagues to make sure that we tackle this crime, which is pan-European and in which this country has a vested interest in trying to repress.

UK Border Agency

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I shall begin by asking the Minister a direct question, which I shall come back to if he feels unable to answer it in his winding-up speech: will he ensure that United Kingdom Border Agency staff are asked to read this debate in Hansard? Whenever I come to take part in or listen to discussions on the House of Lords, not least on issues of civil liberties, I am always struck by the extraordinary level of commitment and expertise to be found here.

Of all those who have contributed, like the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, my noble friend Lord Dholakia and others, among the prime movers in this whole area is my noble friend Lord Avebury. Without going on about him, I think that we all recognise that he is a great credit to this country and the kind of person who Parliament can be proud of because of the persistence and commitment that he shows unreservedly, and with great dedication, day after day.

I shall speak on several issues and be brief about all of them. One of those issues is the things that are patently and immediately wrong, and could be put right relatively easily without any great expenditure. Another is a good example of what could be done at no great expense at all. Then there is what I regard as the deep, almost impossible dichotomy in what we ask UKBA to do between, on the one hand, the commitment to human rights and human decency and, on the other, the overriding pressure on the agency to cut down the number of people coming to this country for whatever reason, however good, that is brought to bear on it by the media and to some extent by those of us who are politicians. In the end, we cannot blame UKBA for things that stem from political dogma and prejudice. We have to take considerable responsibility ourselves.

Let me first say that I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said about being very cautious indeed about outsourcing. We have all read the reports in the past day or two about the House of Commons Select Committee investigation of G4S. However, G4S is likely to be given yet further responsibilities in the next few weeks, not least because of the Olympics. At a certain point, when an organisation, be it public or private, clearly fails, there has to be a careful investigation of its contracts and a decision on whether to continue with those contracts. The chief executive of G4S, Mr Nick Buckles, has been described by the Select Committee as someone who has no idea of what is going on and has shown an extraordinary ability to deny that he knows anything about it, which, I note, has become a great characteristic among those who are being subjected to investigation in almost any area. I strongly suggest that one has to ask whether such an organisation should be responsible for such sensitive issues as the deportation, or, for that matter, the admission, of people from other countries, many of whom have very profound histories of suffering and torture.

The second issue I want to raise very quickly is the question of what are sometimes called legacy cases. The issue has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others, and also by my noble friend Lord Avebury. What are legacy cases? They are cases that have been pending for five years or very much more, in which people have been living in this country as residents, but under the weight of a sword of Damocles, as they may at any point no longer have leave to remain. I believe that the Home Office’s decision to move from indefinite leave to remain to what is now called, in the Home Office’s own phrase, discretionary leave is extremely foolish. Somebody who is given only discretionary leave, but who has lived in this country for five years or more already, will be uncertain about his future and that of his family. He can make no long-term investment in his existence in this country, whether that be a financial investment or a social and personal investment in his children and grandchildren. Discretionary leave is a very poor substitute for indefinite leave to remain. I strongly suggest that we need to look closely at whether an amnesty should be considered as a serious possibility for those who have lived in this country for five years or more with no criminal record of any kind. Amnesties have been granted with good results in a number of other countries.

A further short-term issue I would like to bring up is what is called the fast-track process. It is almost the exact opposite of what ought to happen. The whole asylum and refugee system cannot be built up soundly unless careful attention is given at the first stage. In this country, we have an endless process of appeals and legal interventions, demands, requests and so on, which means that people live here for years without having the right to stay but without any pressure to go. That is because our first-stage processes of admission and refusal are so inefficiently, and, often, so inadequately, advanced. We have to look again at fast-track procedures and ask that thorough early-stage procedures be substituted for them. Failing fast-track procedures, which open the door to appeal after appeal, are disastrous if we want an inexpensive and efficient way to deal with the process. We see that more and more at the present time.

The third issue I want to mention very quickly—and I have a close eye on the time—is that of the return of young people literally within a week or two of reaching the age of 18. Some of these young people, who had been protected by their minority status, are being sent back, right at the present time, to Iraq and Afghanistan. I beg noble Lords to give one moment’s consideration to this: imagine you are an unaccompanied 18 year-old, who may have no contacts whatever in the country to which you are being deported. What do you think you do? You turn to those who are willing to befriend you and, if they happen to be called al-Qaeda, well, bad luck; they are better than nothing at all. We are returning potential terrorists to countries which are insecure and fragile. I cannot think of anything very much more foolish to dream up in a bath on a dark night.

The fourth issue, in only five, was raised by my noble friend and put forward by Asylum Aid: a complete failure to recognise the special position of women in a world where, tragically, rape has become a weapon of war. I first encountered this when Dame Anne Warburton produced a brilliant report on the way in which rape was being used as a weapon of war in Bosnia. Far from disappearing, it has become ever more significant, yet when a woman comes to this country as an asylum seeker, claiming that she has been abused and raped, her case is very often dismissed. That is partly because there are no expert elements in the UKBA, such as there are—thank goodness—in the Metropolitan Police, to consider the special cases of rape and sexual abuse. She usually ends up as a prostitute on the streets of King’s Cross or Everton or somewhere else, because it is the only way in which she can raise the money to keep alive. That is a totally undesirable contribution to the criminal community in our own country.

Finally—before I give an example of something better that can happen—there are those who are left on their own with no means of keeping alive until their case has been heard. The instance of trying to take a very long time to decide an asylum case, with no decent and legal means of support being made available, is once again an invitation for people to be degraded and for others to exploit them and make money out of them.

As for a good example, I am very proud to express to this House an interest that I share with my noble friend Lord Dholakia: we are both patrons of a body called the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group. The group has managed to recruit no fewer than 100 volunteers from among the citizens of the region around Crawley and Gatwick Airport. They are paid nothing; they spend their own money to be able to go and sit with detainees, befriend them, talk to them and give them a sense that, somewhere, there is a source of support, trust and help. There is a waiting list to join the volunteers, amazingly enough. Only a couple of weeks ago, 450 people turned up at a theatre in Crawley to listen to what the refugees had to say about what they had been through and about the songs and poems that had kept them going. This was a crowd of our fellow citizens, not specially selected but men and women who cared about the well-being of their fellow citizens. I suggest going down the path, at least to some extent, of providing confident, human help to one’s peers, rather than following endless, complicated, inexplicable and incomprehensible processes of immigration rules without recognising the human dimension. The latter makes everything more expensive, more complicated and sadder.

I strongly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said by saying in one sentence that one of the greatest investments that this country can make is in those who carry back to their own countries democracy, education and a commitment to the rule of law. We will not get that by making it harder for overseas students to come here or by treating human beings as if they were so much fodder to become terrorists tomorrow.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the first question I should like to answer was put to me by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, who asked whether I would make sure that all UKBA staff read a copy of this debate. I do not think that I can ensure that that happens but I will certainly make sure that a copy goes from my office to Rob Whiteman, the head of UKBA. It will be up to him to decide on the most appropriate method by which he can disseminate the various words of wisdom that have appeared in this debate throughout the entire United Kingdom Border Agency.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I am most grateful to my noble friend.

[Lord Henley]

Perhaps I may say to my noble kinsman Lord Avebury, who introduced this debate and asked a very large number of questions—they were coming out at the rate of four or five a minute at one stage and I am not sure that I got them all down or that I will be able to respond to all of them—that we accept that scrutiny of all government agencies is crucial to ensuring that they deliver the appropriate government policy and offer appropriate value for money. Reports on the work of the border agency have shown the Government that, as in all organisations, there is—how can I put it?—some room for improvement.

I stress that today’s debate is about the role and performance of the United Kingdom Border Agency. However, I will say a little about policy, which is a matter for the Government, because obviously it is important in this area. I think that it would be useful if I start by clarifying the roles of the United Kingdom Border Agency, which this debate is about, and the UK Border Force, which this debate is not about. In March 2012, the border force was split from the United Kingdom Border Agency. There are now two completely separate organisations which work together to provide border and migration control. The UK Border Agency is responsible for actions before people get to the border, and once they are beyond the border and in the UK. The UK Border Force is responsible for protecting the border itself through entry control and customs functions at the border.

Outside the United Kingdom, the UK Border Agency is responsible for the visa system and an intelligence network that checks people travelling to the UK before they arrive and ensures that those who have no right to enter the UK do not come here. In the UK, the UK Border Agency carries out immigration casework—for example, asylum applications, which we will come to in due course, and applications for people to settle in the UK—as well as ensuring those who have no right to be here leave, whether by helping them to return voluntarily or by enforcing their removal. Again, I will say a bit about that later.

I have to say that questions relating to the border force go somewhat wide of the scope of the debate. I appreciate that my noble kinsman, my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Alderdice, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and most recently, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, all raised serious questions about the border force. But in light of the debate and the number of questions I will have to come to, those issues will have to wait for another day. I shall deal with just some of the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords in this debate before I say a word or two about policy and where we wish to be. I appreciate that a large range of questions were asked and I imagine that in the end, as always, I will deal with only a mere tithe of them in this wind-up. I hope that I can write to noble Lords about some of their other concerns in due course.

One of the first questions put to me by my noble kinsman Lord Avebury was about bonuses within UKBA and his regret that they were being paid when there were failures within UKBA. As he probably knows, only the top performers who have consistently worked to a very high standard are recognised through bonuses. We have significantly reduced the value and the number of payments made to senior managers. I think that only a quarter of all staff—the overwhelming majority of whom are front-line officers—were awarded an average of around £500 last year and, I should make clear, only after meeting very strict criteria.

My noble kinsman was worried about the number of appeals allowed, and suggested that 36% was an all-time record. In 2010-11 the Courts and Tribunals Service statistics recorded that some 36% of appeals were allowed, which was not an all-time record. Over the past two years, the figure for allowed appeals, based on the same statistic from HM Courts and Tribunals, has decreased both in percentage terms and volume. I think that in 2009-10 it was 41%, and 38% the year before. If I have got those figures wrong I will write to my noble friend. He seemed to say that it suggested that the decision-making criteria were too hard.

Appeals are allowed for a variety of reasons, including evidence being submitted at the hearing that was previously not seen in the decision-making process. He will know about that in relation to the changes we are making in the Crime and Courts Bill. Consequently the allowed appeal rate is not always indicative of whether the original decision was of poor quality or too harsh. Certainly the Border Agency works hard to analyse the reasons for allowed appeals, in order to identify trends and implement improvements.

My noble kinsman also asked about removal of overstayers, and whether that was a priority of the agency. As he knows well, enforcement is a vital part of the agency’s operations, and it relies on intelligence to identify and take action against those with no right to be here. The Government are certainly determined to crack down on any illegal immigrants who are here without any right to be, and anyone found living or working here is liable to be detained or removed. We believe that illegal immigration, as we have made clear on all occasions, puts undue pressure on public services, local communities and legitimate businesses. This summer we have launched a UK-wide operation to remove overstayers, and have already seen some 2,000 removals since the campaign started. In addition, local immigration teams across the country continue to deal with migration refusal cases. That brings me to the important question of how we deal with the removals, and whether we are doing them in the right manner.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle talked about dawn raids on families, and whether they were appropriate. We would always like people who are here illegally—whether families or others—to leave voluntarily. It is only our last resort to use an enforced return. To reduce the risk of families who will not remove themselves voluntarily absconding, it is sometimes necessary to visit them early in the morning when they are most likely to be at home. However, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that that process is overseen by the Independent Family Returns Panel to ensure that the welfare of children is taken properly into account.

My noble kinsman Lord Avebury, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and others talked about the legacy cases and the problem of clearing the archive. We are dealing with a controlled archive of legacy, asylum and migration cases. These are cases that have not been traced or concluded but continue to be reviewed and checked. We are confident that we will close the controlled archive by the end of December this year. By that point, having checked cases a number of times across multiple databases, including against financial records, the benefits system and HMRC’s systems, as well as our own, we should be satisfied that those individuals are no longer in the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about ELAP, the early legal advice project. As he will be well aware, we want to ensure the provision of high-quality advice, including legal advice to asylum seekers—whether it comes from lawyers or others. He will be aware that ELAP is a very important opportunity to improve our understanding of what works. The project has run since November 2010 and has been extended until March next year. By then we will be in receipt of a final report so that we can make informed decisions about the next steps, based on a fair and thorough evaluation of front-loading legal advice services. Given that the evaluation postdates the next round of legal aid contracts, any decision on a national rollout may not be possible straight away; it will take time to work out the detail of funding mechanisms. The United Kingdom Border Agency will work with partners and the Ministry of Justice to do so as quickly and practically as possible.

My noble friend Lady Hooper raised questions relating to Mexico and asked whether we were meeting criteria for how we should be performing on visas in that country. I can say that visa performance in Mexico is currently good. Short-term visas in Mexico are turned around in an average of 10 days, which certainly matches the figure for other countries. It is something of which the border agency can be proud.

My noble kinsman Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised the case of Mr Jimmy Mubenga. The agency deeply regrets the death of Mr Mubenga. We will very carefully consider any issues that were raised by the CPS investigation and we will certainly decide whether any further action is appropriate once the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation and the coroner’s inquest have been completed. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also asked whether certain letters relating to this case could be put in the Library. May I look at that issue, write to the noble Lord in due course and see whether a response is appropriate?

However, that brings me to the question of restraint and the use of force raised by the noble Lord. In the majority of cases, we believe that the use of force and restraint when undertaking removals is unnecessary. Home Office-approved control and restraint techniques, including the handcuffing of detainees, are only ever used in the removal process where they are deemed necessary to ensure the safety and security of detainees, escorting and airline staff, and other passengers. If handcuffs, for example, are used, they are always removed at the earliest appropriate opportunity, when it is considered safe to do so and when there is no risk to others on board. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance.

I wanted first to deal with some of the points that had been made. I now want to say a little about government policy itself. The border agency obviously deals with the operation of our systems but, in the end, as my noble friend pointed out, it is we, Parliament and the Government, who are responsible for policy, and we should not blame the border agency for policy. That is a matter for the Government and I am here to speak for them. The Government’s overall aim is to rectify an out-of-control immigration system by bringing down net migration while still attracting to the United Kingdom those who we believe are the brightest and the best.

We believe that a comprehensive set of policy reforms on work, students, settlement and family have set the way to achieve that end. It is now for the border agency, which is building on those policy changes through operational change, to deliver the reductions in long-term immigration that the Government expect, while at the same time not preventing valuable and genuine visitors coming to the United Kingdom. The agency has recently implemented measures to control family migration and made significant changes to the visa routes for students, workers and those who wish to settle in the United Kingdom. Across the board the agency has tightened up the requirements for those who wish to come here, by increasing language requirements, salary thresholds and skills levels.

I turn first to students. I listened to what my noble friends Lady Williams, Lord Alderdice and Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about students and universities. I have some sympathy with the points that all of them put, but the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seemed to go somewhat too far at times. What was the remark I put to my noble friend sitting next to me? I think it was, “What planet is he on?”. He seemed to have gone so far away from what we are doing, and what we are trying to do. All we have done is to try to reform the student visa route. The measures we are taking are to ensure that students can be reassured that they are attending genuine institutions that have been properly inspected. That is good for the country, the education sector and the students themselves. The measures include: a tightening of the regime for licensing colleges that sponsor foreign students; restrictions on the entitlement of students, including the right to work; and the closure of the post-study work route from April 2012.

No student who has an offer from a genuine, proper university, and who can speak English, is going to suffer in any way at all. When the noble Lord looks, if he will, at the numbers of those coming from abroad to attend British universities, he will find the figures more or less as they have always been; the students are still coming in. What we have seen is a decline in the number of those coming into very spurious and dubious colleges that were really there just as a way of getting round the immigration system, and served no other purpose whatever.

I would give way, but I have only got two more minutes—

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

13: Schedule 1, page 14, line 3, leave out “three” and insert “five”

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, let me say right away that I come to this issue completely as a laywoman because I have never been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I have never been asked to be a member and I do not purport to have the arcane wisdom that is obviously involved in the intelligence committee. I speak simply as a laywoman puzzled about this point.

I find it strange that the quorum is as low as three—that is to say, one-third of a committee of nine. It puzzles me for two reasons. The first is perhaps best summed up by the rather agreeably brusque remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, who explained, when referring to Australia, that an “awkward squad” had decided to take over that country’s intelligence and security committee, and that it would therefore be open to the possibility of a small group effectively influencing the ISC in ways that might be troubling over the long term.

However, I have a rather different thought in mind. Sadly, many Parliaments around us are increasingly polarised, whereby the Government of the day and the opposition find it very hard to work together. The United States is just one example of that. If you have in a polarised parliament or congress a party that decides it will not co-operate with other parties even on such an important committee as an intelligence and security committee, the committee would be nullified by itself and it would be hard to reach overall decisions. Clearly, on a matter of such importance, it is important that a consensus, if one can be found, should be sought.

There is also another objection that I feel strongly about. The decision of a committee as important as the ISC should at least have to depend upon some level of attendance in addition to the three who may represent one party in order to give the committee the kind of credibility that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and many others referred to when they were talking about public attitudes towards the ISC. I should therefore have expected a larger quorum of at least four or five, rather than three, as stated in the Bill.

The main point of the amendment is to persuade the Minister to think about whether that quorum is not a little too small. There is a real danger that a faction could dominate the committee in a way that would be completely destructive of its credibility over a period of time. I therefore ask him to consider this issue, explain why the figure in the Bill is as low as three—for all I know, it always has been three and I do not know if changing it would be a bad precedent—and to say whether we could have a figure more convincing in terms of carrying public opinion with it.

I have no wish to delay the House but I am surprised that no other amendment has been tabled about the size of the quorum. That may be because I am not part of this wise and arcane group, and I am delighted now to see the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, to whom I have just referred in relation to the quorum being as low as three, which makes it possible for an awkward or fanatical club effectively to control the discussions of the ISC. The noble Lord quoted the case of Australia, as regards the danger that the committee, if there were a low quorum, could be dominated by a small faction or extreme group of some kind. I hope that he will not mind that I referred to him. I beg to move.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I start by being faintly flippant. I remind my noble friend that the quorum for this House and this Committee is only three—one to speak, one to listen and one to sit either in the Chair or on the Woolsack. Even with the crowded House that we have at the moment, we represent probably well below a third or even a tenth of the membership of the House. I should also remind my noble friend that my understanding is that it is the practice of most Select Committees to have a quorum of three or a quarter of the committee’s membership. Three is therefore the number that we have picked. Bearing in mind that the ISC is a relatively small committee with a membership of only nine, three represents a third of the membership.

Having said that, one should take my noble friend’s amendment seriously but we have not, as far as I am aware, had any problems with the quorum. A quorum of five might be overly restrictive, particularly if you take the view that the function of a quorum should be to provide protection against the possibility of a small number of persons on a body taking actions or decisions that could be unrepresentative of that body as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

With great respect, I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said went very far towards supporting the argument that because there is such good attendance at this extremely important committee there is a case for a very low quorum. On the contrary, it seems to me that Members take their duties so seriously—and rightly so, given the importance of the subject matter—that it would not be disruptive to increase the quorum, at least to some extent, from the present three.

Again with great respect, the fact that around 5% of the possible attendance of the House of Lords is present at this particular discussion is not really the point because, of course, noble Lords attend when they are expert or knowledgeable on a particular subject and do not come when this is not the case. In the case of the Intelligence and Security Committee, one assumes from its very careful appointments process that most members are people with a strong commitment and very considerable knowledge of the fields in which they operate.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I hope my noble friend heard in my opening remarks that I was being faintly flippant when talking about this House. I agree that this is a very important committee. I am very happy that attendance is well above its quorum number—that it is always fully quorate. However, I do not think it is necessary to restrict it in such a manner by bringing in an artificially high quorum, which would be completely unlike all other committees. I think that three out of nine is a perfectly effective number and I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in the knowledge that I shall certainly return to this issue on Report.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Baroness Williams of Crosby Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Dubs, in being one of the outsiders contributing to this debate. It has such an important nature that it is important that those who are not lawyers as well as those who are take a substantial part in it.

In many ways, what has happened to the Bill is a great credit to some of the recent changes that have been made in Parliament. The fact that we have had a brilliant and succinct report from the Constitution Committee and a very full, factually based and sensible report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights says a great deal about the way in which committees are now beginning to complement and in many ways strengthen what has been something of a weakness in the House of Commons: its ability to scrutinise legislation going through Parliament. These two committees have served us extraordinarily well and I think it would be appropriate on this occasion for me to pay a passing tribute to the shade of the late Lord St John-Stevas for having made such a major and significant contribution to our constitutional development.

The Deputy Prime Minister deserves a word of praise. Having intervened fairly early in the process of considering the Bill, he was able almost immediately to challenge two elements of the Green Paper that were particularly disturbing: one of those aspects being the particular right of Ministers to decide whether a court should be held in closed session; and the second being, in my view at least, the attempt to include inquests within the scope of the CMP. I think he deserves recognition for having intervened and drawn attention to these two particularly extreme and in many ways odious provisions of the Green Paper.

Having said all that, I am also delighted with the strengthening of the position of the Intelligence and Security Select Committee—on this I think I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. The decisions that it should choose its own chairman and that it should be accountable to Parliament rather than just to the Prime Minister are significant steps in gaining much greater accountability over the whole area of intelligence. For reasons that I will come to a little later, that is vital.

On the Bill itself, I have to admit that the state of the judiciary, as well as the care taken by the Select Committees of Parliament, has been impressive. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill that the judiciary has consistently behaved with extraordinary integrity and real commitment to the concept of human rights and the individual liberties of our citizens, and at the same time has been sensitive and aware, all the way through, of the national security requirement. We are extraordinarily lucky in the judiciary that we in this country enjoy and we need to do everything that we can to sustain it.

One aspect that is perhaps particularly important is the limitation of the introduction of the CMP into civilian proceedings. As has already been mentioned in the debate, it is quite striking that the special advocates could not have been clearer in their views that any further extension of the CMP into civilian proceedings would be unacceptable and would contribute very little to the quality of judicial statement and conclusion in our country. Given the pressures on them, it seems quite remarkable that they achieve near unanimity in a bold and strong statement about their position on the Bill. We have to pay careful attention to this because, as we know, virtually every currently practising lawyer who has had direct experience of the CMP in his or her own proceedings was deeply clear that it was a very unfair procedure and that steps to make it fairer were very difficult to attain. Also very clearly indicated was their view that a much stronger case needs to be made even in the field of national security and certainly beyond it in looking very hard at the CMP proposal.

In many ways the special advocates also regarded public interest immunity as a more satisfactory safeguard for the claims of those who came before the courts. Such cases became particularly difficult—this was mentioned in debate—where claimants invoked the Norwich Pharmacal precedent whereby information had to be disclosed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace pointed out, originally with regard to intellectual property. However, as it was extended from intellectual property and ingeniously used as a way to get access to sensitive security matters, it obviously presented the Government with a very serious difficulty. Under present practice, it meant the Government withdrawing cases altogether rather than risking disclosure. This could lead to an unjust outcome. The former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is clearly particularly exercised about the possibility of injustice here. I wonder whether he would agree that judges must be consulted on the balance of interest in deciding whether a court should accept the CMP and whether he could be asked to explain openly their reasons for giving such a decision.

The Government’s response to the Green Paper was far too cavalier on the essential principles of natural and open justice. Even in the redrafted Bill, Clause 13 defines “sensitive information”, which I know has now been somewhat changed to “national security information”, far too loosely and ranges far too wide. What my noble friend Lord Lester had to say about this was absolutely right. It therefore provides for unacceptable and unaccountable executive power by including within the definition a certificate by the Secretary of State if he or she considers that disclosure might damage the interests of national security or the international relations of the United Kingdom. This latter condition—I share this worry with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—is usually interpreted by the media as being damaging to our relations with the United States, but it might also of course include damaging our relations with other countries that lack any commitment to the rule of law or to refuse the use of torture as something that can be presented in evidence.

I therefore ask my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness whether the Government are absolutely sure that other countries, not including the United States, could not object, for example, to there being a decision to allow this material to be used if they found it offensive to their view of themselves regardless of whether they had a commitment to the human rights of other human beings and whether they had a proper commitment to laws that establish the freedom and independence of courts. There are a large number of countries—I could mention some but for reasons of diplomacy I will not—that are very close allies of the United Kingdom and that have virtually no commitment to the rule of law. What, therefore, is the position meant to be if they then use this part of the Bill to claim that they should not have been forced or compelled to make any revelations at all.

I turn briefly to the concept of security itself, which has become an autonomous noun—a self-justifying concept. Security may be understood as securing the health and safety of innocent citizens. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, made this his central definition of security, but I find it very difficult to do that. The concept of security should also be understood as securing the liberties and freedoms of a democratic society, not in principle contradicting them. I find it very hard to believe that security is strongly established if it is set in contradiction to these basic values. There is a worrying inclination to move in that direction: to treat security, as I said, as an autonomous noun—as something that has a right to itself other than that fundamental right of protecting individual liberty and safety and the basic values of a democratic society.

After 9/11—I should probably now declare a rather modest interest as a member of the governing committee of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard—some measures were taken that gave security precedence over any other values and rights. Among some of those precedent measures were measures that went quite directly contrary to what most of us would regard as the fundamental principles of being a law-abiding society. I am a little disturbed by our debate having paid so little attention to what I have to say is one of the shaming dimensions of intelligence: the whole story that has emerged about extraordinary rendition and the misuse of intelligence to bring about results and ends that are simply not compatible with those basic values.

I strongly argue that one of the great concerns that we ought to share is the continuation of the existence of Guantanamo Bay, despite the general intentions of President Obama to get rid of it when he was first elected in 2008. We should also be disturbed by the appalling story of extraordinary rendition by the CIA, which, deeply regrettably, some British intelligence was involved in and which has not yet fully emerged into the light of day.

I shall say this very carefully: an American President under increasing pressure from Congress, particularly a Congress of somewhat extreme views about how civil liberties should be subordinated in every possible instance where there is a clash with so-called security, could use Clause 13 as a way to demand the wider use of the CMP in the British judicial and political system. I for one would find that deeply regrettable.

I conclude by saying that it is rather ironic that the Government have not proposed the use of security-cleared lawyers in such cases. In this the United States has shown strength by insisting that such security-cleared lawyers can be trusted in the recent habeas cases of two people who are being retained at Guantanamo Bay. The US has been willing to accept, as we have not, that security clearance is a sufficient and substantial safeguard. We seem disinclined even to look at the possibility, but I would add it to the list of options referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as one of the various alternatives. This is one that we might want to look at.

Another might well be the one proposed by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, which draws on the Diplock court principle and priority, with the idea of a separate judge having particular responsibility for the levels of disclosure. The judge would have to satisfy him or herself that there had been no failure to disclose where necessary, but equally whether there should be any insistence on disclosure that runs contrary to natural justice and natural law. Finally, one other prospect might be looked at carefully. It was mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—the more extensive use of various forms of redaction as a way of dealing with the problem.

There are several options before the Government, all of which should be carefully considered because one or more of them are preferable to the direction that we are moving in under Clauses 6 and 13. I hope that the Government will give serious and detailed consideration to these proposals because, with amendment, the Bill will make a useful contribution. Without amendment, it will stand as something that should not be allowed to pass into law.